AJIT KAUR Vs. DALBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the defendants. The suit filed by plaintiffs Smt. Dalbir Kaur and other under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 for a decree directing the District Registrar and Sub Registrar, Tehsil Amritsar, for registration of sale deed dated 16.10.1975 executed by defendant No. 1, in favour of the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs. 43837.50, was decreed by learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.1979.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present appeal, as culled out from the pleadings of the parties, reveal that plaintiffs 2 and 3 being minors filed a suit through their father, natural guardian, against Sukhbir Singh, arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the original suit, who died during the pendency of the lis and his name was substituted by his legal representatives, brought on record as 1(a) to 1(g). It was case of plaintiffs that on 16.10.1975, defendant No. 1 had executed sale deed on the requisite stamp paper for the sale of land measuring 50 kanals 2 marlas, fully described in the plaint, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71 situated at Village Fatehgarh Sukar Chak for consideration of Rs. 43837.50 and had signed the said sale deed. All the formalities, as required by law, were fully complied with. However, when the sale deed was going to be presented before the Sub Registrar, defendant No. 1 slipped away. Subsequently, the plaintiffs approached defendant No. 1 for getting the aforesaid sale deed registered on the terms and conditions mentioned in it but defendant No. 1 put off their request. On 4.11.1975, the plaintiffs applied for the registration of the aforesaid sale deed before the Sub Registrar under the provisions of Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act (for short 'the Act'), and made their best endeavour to secure the presence of defendant No. 1 before the Sub Registrar, but when defendant No. 1 did not turn up, the Sub Registrar refused to register the sale deed. An application under the provisions of Section 73 of the Act was moved on 1.1.1976 to the District Registrar wherein notice was issued against defendant No. 1, but he did not appear and the application too was dismissed. This necessitated the plaintiffs to file the present suit. The defendants contested the suit on variety of grounds which will be reflected in the issues framed by learned Subordinate Judge, which are reproduced below :

(3.) IN the context of the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no substance in either of the contentions noted above raised by learned counsel. As regards issue No. 1 with regard to sale deed having been properly executed or stamped, the plaintiffs, besides producing the sale deed, also examined their witnesses fully supporting the execution of the sale deed which was found properly stamped as well. Nothing at all could be pointed out from the cross examination of these witnesses that may fall within the meaning of weakness in their evidence. Insofar as the evidence that was led by the defendant with regard to Issue No. 1 is concerned, the same has rightly been rejected by learned trial Court as the theory with regard to defendant No. 1 being in the habit of drinking and signing papers under the influence of liquor sought to be supported by his wife has rightly been disbelieved on variety of grounds inclusive of that the very defendant had executed some other sale deeds later in point of time and in favour of the plaintiffs only. Insofar as the contention with regard to the payment of sale consideration is concerned, no issue was claimed and, thus, none was framed by the trial Court, obviously meaning that it was not even a case of the defendant that sale consideration had not been paid or was not to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Further, a perusal of the sale deed Ex.PW3/1 would show that the land, subject matter of sale, was already under mortgage and the substantial part of the sale consideration was to be retained by the plaintiff which was to be paid to the mortgagees whereas the remaining consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. In view of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is consequently dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.